A private landlord from Bridlington has been ordered to pay £1,500 for putting tenants into a dangerous property, thereby breaching a prohibition order that was in place.
Karen Kettlewell, of Airdale Drive, Bridlington, pleaded guilty to breaching the prohibition order under the Housing Act 2004 when she appeared at Beverley Magistrates' Court.
Kettlewell was ordered to pay a total of £1,500.12, consisting of a £120 fine, costs of £1,332.12 and a £48 victim surcharge.
The court heard the prohibition order had been served on Kettlewell in April 2022, on her property in Bridlington, following an inspection by private sector housing officers from East Riding of Yorkshire Council.
The officers found the disrepair in the property to be an imminent risk to the safety of the two adults and five children in occupation.
Defects included a broken central heating system, a lack of hot water, dangerous and faulty electrics, damp and mould, a partially collapsed ceiling and penetrating dampness.
The council intervened and offered emergency temporary accommodation to ensure the family's safety.
The legal notice that had been served in 2022 prohibited the residential use of the property until the hazards listed in the order had been reduced or removed.
In July 2023, officers discovered that Kettlewell had breached that prohibition order by allowing 21 Clarence Road to be re-occupied and rented out, whilst failing to remove the majority of the hazards.
Chris Dunnachie, East Riding of Yorkshire Council's private sector housing manager, says: "Breaching a prohibition order is a serious criminal housing offence.
"In this case, the landlord knowingly put people back into the property and then charged them rent, despite the serious dangers within it.
"Hopefully this prosecution will deter others from acting in such an irresponsible manner."
Want to comment on this story? Our focus is on providing a platform for you to share your insights and views and we welcome contributions.
If any post is considered to victimise, harass, degrade or intimidate an individual or group of individuals, then the post may be deleted and the individual immediately banned from posting in future.
Please help us by reporting comments you consider to be unduly offensive so we can review and take action if necessary. Thank you.
Private landlords have long been expected to keep their properties to...
A reminder has gone to landlords about new electrical safety standards...
A council has served closure orders on three properties in Bridlington,...
A buy-to-let landlord has been ordered to pay more than £2,000...
The vast majority of tenants are unaware of new laws introduced...
Despite the recent tax crackdown, buy-to-let continues to look an attractive...
The property market had enjoyed a boost thanks to the outcome...
There wasn’t much by way of good news in the Spring...
Twenty twenty-four is a pivotal year for landlords in the Private...
National Landlord Investment Show has announced that the former Leader of...
The management of BTL properties, whether it's a modest collection of...
We are thrilled to report that the first National Landlord Investment...
If interest rate rises weren’t enough to drive landlords out the...
A council has prosecuted a landlord for letting out two HMOs...
The Labour-led government in Wales has issued a consultation proposing the...
Another council is looking for landlords with rental properties to match...
Another council is looking for landlords with rental properties to match...
.png)
Landlords and renters’ activists are at either end of the spectrum...
A prominent lettings sector expert is blaming the media for anti-landlord...
Who are you and what does it say on...
Who are you, and what does it say on...
Who are you? I am the Head of Broking for...
Join the conversation
Jump to latest comment and add your reply
This one doesn’t sound too good. Think maybe got away lightly
She got away VERY lightly. There can be no excuse for breaching a prohibition order.
5 Children, that sounds worse than 5 dogs, wounder if the parents were in work? doudt full
Probably no television. 🤣🤣🤣
The fine in this case was pitifully low and the total cost barely a deterrent. It seems that there is a huge disparity between fines (which I have no problem with when it is around major or multiple safety violations) and the potential returns if bad landlords ignore safety and maintenance. It is this that needs to change, not adding more red tape.
Yes the fine is not much different to a parking contravention.
What is striking is the extravagant prosecution costs as usual they never earn their money or need to justify it. In this their alleged costs are 10 times the fine. No doubt the Tenant had a hand in this to further his chances of getting Council to house them. Its totally irresponsible to have 5 Children with no intention of buying a property to house them and expect the taxpayer to rear & house them, it will cost the Council substantially more in B&B in Hotels.
I better leave it there….
The court case was not because oif the tenants with five children. they were put in temporary accommodation in 2022. They are probably still there.
the prosectiuon was for breaching the 2022 prohibition order by re-letting the property fifteen months later. As Emily says, the fine was pitifully low.
Agree this sort of thing is totally unacceptable and the fines should be much higher. If you can't afford the repairs then you should sell the property.
Please login to comment